民事證據收集制度之體系化

Reflection on the System of Evidence Collection in Civil Procedure Law

現行書證提出命令制度與律師調查令、法官調查取證、證據保全等制度疊床架屋的局面造成了體系性混亂。混亂的根源可從外部體系和內部體系兩方面解釋。在外部體系，書證提出命令及其變種律師調查令制度采大陸法系的“當事人收集／法官指揮”模式，法官調查取證制度及證據保全制度則采“當事人收集／法官收集”模式，二者都是整體性的證據收集制度解決方案，功能相同而互相排斥。就內部體系，兩種模式背後的原則分別為“司法主導”和“司法替代”，這二者之間也很難通約。為實現證據收集制度的體系化，應采“司法主導原則”及“當事人收集／法官指揮”模式，具體路徑包括擴張文書提出命令制度、充實證據保全制度和增設法官職權命令取證制度。

The current system for collecting evidence in civil law includes various methods such as document production orders, civil investigation orders, judicial investigations, judge evidence collection, and evidence preservation, which has led to confusion due to overlapping mechanisms. This confusion stems from two primary sources: legal technology and legal culture. The document production order and its variant, the civil investigation order, follow the“party collection/ judge control”model typical of continental legal systems, while judicial investigation, judge evidence collection, and evidence preservation adopt the“party collection/ judge collection”model. Both are holistic solutions to the evidence collection system, operating in a functionally similar but mutually exclusive manner. They are also underpinned by different legal cultures—the“judicial priority”model and the“judicial substitution”model—which do not share common features. Therefore, the“judicial substitution”model should be adopted along with the“party collection/ judge control”model, and a reconstructed evidence collection system should include expanding document production orders, enhancing the evidence preservation system, and instituting a system for judges to order evidence collection.